whitewolffandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Via Primordia
Disambiguation I guess, user Thanateros has something to say on the subject. Russel Hammond (talk) 20:07, August 17, 2015 (UTC) ---- Problem: A reader wants to browse an article for "Primordia", but as that word is used ambiguously we do not know whether they want the article on the triat called Primordia or the related religion also sometimes confusingly called Primordia. Solution: The wiki solution for ambiguous terms is a disambiguation page. The individual articles are then given more specific titles, such as Primordia_(Triat). In this particular scenario the published canon has already provided a more specific title for the other article, Via_Primordia. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-19th 07:38 UTC ---- Your problem: The article Primordia (Triad) is a part of the article Primordia, but I decided to separate them to eliminate the ambiguity. However, truth be told, Primordia and Primordia (Triad) are one and the same. Primordia is a belief system, not an institution, there's no official name to this belief system - they believe in the Primordia (the Triat, although they aren't seen as Triat themselves, but as a trio of spirits akin to the Triat) and that's how their belief system is called. Furthermore Primordia and Primordia (Triad) mutually refer to each other. If a reader enter any of these articles, she will find gateways to go back and forth between them. If you're worried a reader won't notice these references, you should simply add something like.. :main article Primordia (Triad) Problem solved. Aditional solution: The wiki solution for ambiguous terms is a disambiguation page. You're right about that, but there is no need to overcomplicate things. If you're still not satisfied with the solution I presented above, you should follow the example set by the wiki and create a disambiguation page (not the way you were previously doing it though). I can easily show you some examples of how it should be done: *Primordia (disambiguation) *Promethean (disambiguation) *Exalted (disambiguation) *Umbra (disambiguation) *Fate (disambiguation) Got the picture? Simply changing the article's name to Via Primordia, turning Primordia into a disambiguation page is wrong. There are no other sources that employ the term. This article is the only Primordia there is, and Primordia (Triad) was always a part of it. If a reader is browsing for "Primordia" she will easily discover that all articles on the subject are interrelated and intuitive. Russel Hammond (talk) 17:08, August 19, 2015 (UTC) ---- The failing of appending "_(disambiguation)" to create a title for a disambiguation page is that no one will ever mistakenly create a link to such an article. The wiki precedents that I follow are the more effectively titled disambiguation pages such as the Kindred disambiguation page, which chronologically precedes all of your examples of less effectively titled disambiguation pages. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-21st 10:54 UTC This could be applied if the term was employed by a different scenario (like "Kindred" from VTR or "Kindred" from VTM). Such is not the case with Primordia, because the articles are interrelated -- in fact, as I previously stated, they are one and the same (it was my personal decision to split them apart to be more specific). OBS: you may edit only your messages in this discussion, not mine. Please don't do it again. Russel Hammond (talk) 15:30, August 21, 2015 (UTC) ---- Scenario is not relevant; an ambiguous term is an ambiguous term, and Term is a more effective disambiguation title than Term_(disambiguation). - Thanateros 2015-Aug-21st 16:54 UTC Ok my friend, the discussion is over. I offered several diplomatic solutions but you are just being stubborn. You may keep editing the article as much as you want and I'll keep changing it back. Have a good day. Russel Hammond (talk) 17:14, August 21, 2015 (UTC) ---- Russel, you are being disingenuous when you claim to have been diplomatic; if you had truly wanted to be diplomatic you would have started a sincere talk page discussion prior to starting a revision/undo war. Instead your first response was to condescendingly tell me that my disambiguation was wrong, despite the fact that I followed a wiki precedent which preceded all of your less effective disambiguation examples. Even the wording of the text automatically generated by the tag evidences an expectation that the title of the disambiguation page will be just the ambiguous term itself. Primordia is an ambiguous term, Ambiguous_Term without parenthetical suffix is the most effective title for a disambiguation page, and there is well established precedent in this wiki of such titling; these three facts combine to provide an extremely strong argument in my favor. You have no comparably strong argument; you are simply egotistically exerting your own preference regarding which of two published canon terms you personally prefer, which is insufficient justification for the revision/undo war that you started. My goal here is optimal clarity via optimal disambiguation; your goal appears to be the stubbornly self-absorbed indulgence of your personal preferences even in the face of a clearly superior disambiguation technique. You have been condescendingly self-absorbed from the very beginning. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 6:10 UTC I'm not gonna argue with you anymore my friend. For a second there I really thought you were trying to improve the wiki as the rest of us. But that second has passed and I realized you're a troll. You are not trying to reach common ground on the matter at hand, you're only trying to satisfy your ego. But I'm not gonna lecture you... keep being who you are, keep doing your thing - and I'll do mine. Russel Hammond (talk) 06:20, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- My contribution here is optimizing clarity via optimizing disambiguation, which you confusedly equate to "trolling". Since you clearly do not value clarity via optimal disambiguation, I am truly curious as to what quality you believe you are contributing? - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 6:30 UTC If this interpretation of what just transpired makes you feel better, then go for it! As I said before, you should continue to do your thing and have a nice day my friend. The discussion is over and I'm not here to lecture anyone. Russel Hammond (talk) 06:42, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- If you truly want me to "do my thing" on this cluster of articles, optimizing disambiguation, you would need to stop undoing my disambiguations just because they do not suit your personal preferences. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 6:46 UTC The Straw Man fallacy presented above does not represent my propositions in this discussion. Russel Hammond (talk) 06:51, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- If you are going to link to a fallacy, you need to at least provide a short summary of the supposedly fallacious statements. The most pertinent point here, and the one which you keep evading, is that Primordia without parenthetical suffix is the most optimal disambiguation title. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 7:07 UTC I'm not "evading" anything. I explained the matter to you in detail (patiently). I created a disambiguation page, and inserted a you might also check template. That seems enough. Russel Hammond (talk) 07:15, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- Even that reply though evades the fact that Primordia without parenthetical suffix is a more optimal disambiguation title than Primordia_(disambiguation), precisely because no one will ever unknowingly link to Primordia_(disambiguation). The fact that you state that you "explained the matter" to me is further evidence of your condescending stance here; you were never willing to actually discuss this as cooperative editors. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 7:35 UTC Nah, I'm pretty sure that's your imagination again. As I previously said, Primordia is the main article from which the others derive. It was my personal initiative to separate them to eliminate ambiguity, however interconnected they might be. Still, I created a disambiguation page and a template to eliminate any confusion - and that is more than enough, wheather you want to admit it or not. Russel Hammond (talk) 07:50, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- That is more than enough... for you. ...And that's really the salient point here: you operate as if this wiki is for you and your preferences; you only permit others' input as long as it does not contradict your preferences. You have undone or severely revised all of my disambiguation attempts here in favor of your own preferences. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 7:59 UTC Now that's pretty unfair. I'm a flexible guy that patiently debated the issue with you. I presented several diplomatic solutions to eliminate ambiguity as you requested. In response you acted like an egomaniac, adamant in a position from the get-go. I, on the other hand, was always willing to reach common ground. You should not smear people like that my friend. Russel Hammond (talk) 08:26, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- The fact that you started a revision/undo war prior to any attempt to converse via talk page is what gave me that impression. How was I to react to such an adamant "attack" (to phrase it dramatically) other than to react in kind? My initial approach to addressing the ambiguity was to do so solely within the wording of the lone Primordia article, but you revised my disambiguation away to favor your preferred of the two canonical terms, which happens to be the ambiguous one. My second approach was to create the optimal disambiguation page, but you undid that to favor your preferred style of disambiguation page (despite the fact that it is not as effective) as well as your preferred of the two canonical terms again. Clarity is an explicit goal of encyclopedic writing, a corollary to which is optimal disambiguation. The goal is not to have our clarity/disambiguation to be merely good enough; the goal is for it to be optimized. My preferred solution would be a single Primordia article, but one whose wording is fully disambiguated. - Thanateros 2015-Aug-22nd 8:57 UTC Stop victimizing yourself. When a subject is contested, keeping the article in it's uncontested form until the editors can reach common ground is standard procedure. I have started no "war", in fact, I have more than 9.000 edits on the wiki and curiously that's the first time something like that ever happened to me. If I remember correctly, I was the one who proposed this debate in the first place and (despite you acting like a total douche bag), I was patient and flexible but that wasn't nearly enough for ya. Well, maybe your mommy and daddy haven't taught you to cope with other people, maybe brute force is the only thing you respond to.. In any case you're not getting anywhere by doing your thing over here. Russel Hammond (talk) 15:29, August 22, 2015 (UTC) ---- As you do not seem to have learned this before now, I must inform you that abusive name-calling is not appropriate behavior on this wiki (or anywhere else). I'm sure that you do not truly want this wiki to be a hostile environment of abusive name-calling and juvenile taunting, yet that is exactly the environment you are creating here. The quality that I have been very transparently trying to contribute to the Primordia article(s) is clarity via optimal disambiguation. What quality are you attempting to contribute here? I have to ask (yet again) because the only thing you appear to be pursuing is your own personal preferences, and rather aggressively so. Your less-than-defensible position so far has been that partial disambiguation is "more than enough". Can you commit to maturely conversing about this without descending into abusive name-calling again? - Thanateros 2015-Aug-29th 12:52 UTC You are pretty bold to accuse me of creating such an enviroment after your repeated attempts to smear me while victimizing yourself. I admit, however, that your stubborn behavior is kinda pissing me off right now (and that's why I have urged you, a long time ago, to end this discussion). This hypocrisy has to end... you know very well it's not just my personal preferences that are on the line (after all, I showed you several examples as to how the wiki has proceeded in similar cases). It is obvious now that you never wanted a mutual resolution. You just wanted to ram your "understanding" down our throats from the start. You're acting like a bully, and I'm sorry, but I won't have that. Russel Hammond (talk) 20:38, August 29, 2015 (UTC) ---- You did cite some disambiguation page examples as an attempt at precedent, but I was able to defeat your citation by citing an older and more effective style of disambiguation page. ...And you still have zero justification for your stance that partial disambiguation is "more than enough". - Thanateros 2015-Sep-26th 11:05 UTC You did tried to counter the several precedents I brought forth, but I was able to defeat your "counter-argument" explaining it was not in the same context as the term discussed, in light of the fact that the term you displayed was being employed to differentiate scenarios (like Kindred (VTM) from Kindred (VTR)), while the terms discussed are interrelated. Furthermore, I expressed the opinion that both approaches (such as Umbra (disambiguation) and Kindred), are correct. But that hardly means you are correct in this particular case. Russel Hammond (talk) 17:21, September 26, 2015 (UTC) ---- What you have failed to do is demonstrate how this "context" and "scenario" that you mention are somehow more important than effectiveness of disambiguation itself. ...And you still have zero justification for your stance that partial disambiguation is "more than enough". - Thanateros 2015-Oct-10th 8:39 UTC I was able to demonstrate this right from the start, when I stressed the articles were interrelated, and actually one and the same (it was my personal decision to split them apart, to be more specific). Now you are just walking in circles Thanateros. Get over it. Russel Hammond (talk) 16:46, October 13, 2015 (UTC) ---- I agree with Russel Hammond. Whether Thanateros approves it or not, a common ground has been reached. 20:04, October 13, 2015 (UTC) ---- Russel hails from Brazil, and 179.232.188.7 is a Brazilian IP address; even if Russel and the anonymous commentor are not the same person, this fact is still highly suspicious. When your arguments are not well formulated enough to stand on their own merit, invent an ally (with equally poor logic skills) to agree with you. - Thanateros 2015-Oct-16th 5:13 UTC Well, that's a new kind of low (even for you). Although I agree that's kinda suspicious, my arguments are just fine. Besides, another commentator is not an arbiter, take it easy there buddy! Oh, and by the way, my IP address is 177.20.243.189, I just checked. Russel Hammond (talk) 03:02, October 17, 2015 (UTC) As you can see for yourself. 03:03, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ---- The list of disambiguation pages on this wiki lists over 500 disambiguation pages using just the ambiguous Term for the title, and less than 40 pages using the Term_(disambiguation) format for the title, so using just the ambiguous term as the title of a disambiguation page is clearly the preferred format on this wiki. - Thanateros 2015-Dec-31st 14:11 UTC Both forms are correct. The Term_(disambiguation) format is used to save time of the readers when the terms are interrelated. Russel Hammond (talk) 14:30, December 31, 2015 (UTC) ---- As no one will ever unknowingly link to the Term_(disambiguation) format, that format does not reliably save time. Due precisely to the phenomenon of unknowingly linking to term that happens to be ambiguous, just the ambiguous Term for the title of a disambiguation page is the more effective and time-saving format, and again it is the preferred format on this wiki, for that very effectiveness. - Thanateros 2015-Apr-15th 10:59 UTC That is incorrect. When the terms are interrelated, it means they already refer to each other. No need to a specific disambiguation page when we already have a main article. It would be redundant, a waste of navigational time and not optimal - specially in the light that the Main article and the Triat article are one and the same, but were separated by the editor to clarify any shred of ambiguity. Russel Hammond (talk) 01:20, April 16, 2016 (UTC) Locked Rather than have people continuing over a relatively minor page on an unofficial Wiki, I am locking the page as-is until either you both come to an adult agreement on how to handle it or you both decide to abandon the subject. --Ian talk 20:55, September 21, 2015 (UTC) ---- I agree with your decision to lock the page as it is. Russel Hammond (talk) 17:07, September 25, 2015 (UTC) ---- Ian, Russel was antisocially aggressive before you locked the page. Now that you have locked the page in the partially ambiguous state which he prefers you have provided tacit approval to his aggression, and he now has less than zero incentive to amend his behavior toward cooperative editing. By locking the page without moderating the dispute, the precedent is now: In an edit war, be as aggressive as you want to be before the page gets locked. - Thanateros 2015-Sep-26th 10:33 UTC I really not gonna waste my time and energy defending myself against yet another attempt from Thanateros to smear me. One can read the thread above and decide for himself if our colleague was ever interested in "agreements". Russel Hammond (talk) 17:21, September 26, 2015 (UTC) ---- I propose that we work toward an agreement on what would make for the highest quality article. - Thanateros 2015-Oct-10th 8:39 UTC We already did, but you were not satisfied because you want to force your own understanding. Quit it already. Russel Hammond (talk) 19:07, April 15, 2016 (UTC) Update on the discussion about the whole Primordia thing The solution to solve the whole thing between Thanatheros and me, somehow slipped my mind. It was right there but I wasn't able to see it. We could have "Primordia" being tranformed into Via Primordia to eliminate ambiguity, we just have to add a little description saying that the majority of its followers know their religion simply as "Primordia" - indicating that our option for "Via Primordia" was editorial. I apologize to all involved (for all your troubles), and have faith that this new consensus version will meet Thanateros approval. Russel Hammond (talk) 23:08, April 26, 2016 (UTC)